How To End Radical -Extremist Muslim Terrorism!

[charles brough]

Just what is the acclaimed reason in our society for the growth of Muslim terrorism in the last several generations? Seems to me there is no acclaimed reason at all! But how can we have an effective policy against terrorism if we don't know what causes it? There has to be some underlying assumptions behind our policy which we are not proclaiming but which our policies imply anyway. Our policy implies that "Islam is undergoing a degeneration towards extremism due to some defect in the faith." No one will say that because that would accelerate the problem, but it is implied anyway. People do think it---especially conservatives.

 

But is that really the cause? If so, what is this defect, when did it appear, and why?

 

Or is the problem or the "defect" cause by us?

[Essay]

Just what is the acclaimed reason in our society for the growth of Muslim terrorism in the last several generations? Seems to me there is no acclaimed reason at all! But how can we have an effective policy against terrorism if we don't know what causes it? There has to be some underlying assumptions behind our policy which we are not proclaiming but which our policies imply anyway. Our policy implies that "Islam is undergoing a degeneration towards extremism due to some defect in the faith." No one will say that because that would accelerate the problem, but it is implied anyway. People do think it---especially conservatives.

 

But is that really the cause? If so, what is this defect, when did it appear, and why?

 

Or is the problem or the "defect" cause by us?

...the only acclaimed reason I've ever heard is that "they hate our freedoms." But....

 

It doesn't seem to be that they "hate our freedoms," but more that they hate any imposition upon their freedoms. But lets not try to define freedom yet. I'd like to go a different direction for starters.

===

 

What makes a person commit suicide? Whatever the reason is (call it x), it is important to realize how a person so motivated will blame some "cause" for this current "effect" (seeing suicide as next option).

 

I have to agree that if I felt lost and hopeless, and felt that everything that had meaning for me, and my ancestors and posterity, was now lost and had all been for nothing, then suicide might seem painless and the path most obvious.

 

And if I saw the cause--for the reason of being it that position--I might feel that cause deserves to be removed. But if it couldn't be removed, then I might feel that cause deserves to be attacked in an effort to express the anger of being forced into the position of suicide.

 

In other words, it's like the outcast who "stikes out" at the source of ostracism. The "lost one" feels that the "in" group (the bullys, the mainstream, the dominant culture) then "deserve" to be made aware of the effect they caused.

 

If someone made you decide upon suicide, wouldn't you feel they "deserve" whatever you could inflict upon them, in kind? Would that be justified?

===

 

And if I saw the same thing happening to my family and friends, or my culture, then I might feel the cause of that effect (or source of that cause) deserved to be attacked; to be made aware of what had been done, or what was currently happening, or even what seemed to have no prospect of abating for my posterity or my culture.

 

When your past & future are taken away, there is no present worth living except to make a statement; a metaphorical suicide note, to let the thieves know your past & future counted enough that you deserve to make at least one statement, which cannot be taken away.

===

 

If you are made powerless, the cause of that effect "deserves" to be countered. Does that seem reasonable, or is that a defect? That is what this is about; who deserves which, and what can be justified.

 

IMHO it's not about freedom, it's about justice; ...unless perhaps it is about the freedom to be unjust. They don't hate our freedoms, they hate our views of justice. Do you really want to talk about that cause?

 

~ :huh:

[Moontanman]

Just what is the acclaimed reason in our society for the growth of Muslim terrorism in the last several generations? Seems to me there is no acclaimed reason at all! But how can we have an effective policy against terrorism if we don't know what causes it? There has to be some underlying assumptions behind our policy which we are not proclaiming but which our policies imply anyway. Our policy implies that "Islam is undergoing a degeneration towards extremism due to some defect in the faith." No one will say that because that would accelerate the problem, but it is implied anyway. People do think it---especially conservatives.

 

But is that really the cause? If so, what is this defect, when did it appear, and why?

 

Or is the problem or the "defect" cause by us?

 

 

Charles, I honestly think the reason can be summed up in very few words, quite possibly one, RELIGION, nothing else I know of can cause people to do things that are totally insane and allow everyone else to cheer them on and approve of the those actions and incite others to do the same thing. Only RELIGION can make you think you can dictate to everyone that anyone who does certain things you disagree with need to die or be killed even if those things are not effecting you in anyway other than being in your estimation wrong, only RELIGION dictates that even minor behaviors that your group thinks should not be done is deserving of death. And only RELIGION says that everyone has to be forced to follow those rules to please an unknown and impossible to know imaginary friend....

[Essay]

Is that what motivates kids who suicidally attack their own highschool, or what motivates recently fired workers to suicidally seek reprisals?

[Moontanman]

Is that what motivates kids who suicidally attack their own highschool, or what motivates recently fired workers to suicidally seek reprisals?

 

 

Actually it just might be but most such isolated occurrences are generally thought to be due to insanity of some sort but Religion is much like insanity, if you were hearing voices in your head that were telling you to do things most would say you are insane but if you claim it's God talking to you then it's religion...

[Fluxus]

I know this may come as a shock to some folks here, but: Scholars and political scientists have, in fact, studied and debated the issue for quite some time.

 

As with most other fields, there is a diversity of opinions on why a handful of Muslims are radicalized and violent, including:

 

• An extensive history of conflict between Christianized Europe and Muslims in North Africa and Asia

• Historical and recent losses of political power by Muslim nations (e.g. fall of the Ottoman Empire, military defeats to Israel)

• The presence of Israel, combined with poor treatment of Palestinians and attacks on neighboring nations

• US / Western dominance and influence on Muslim nations (e.g. installing and supporting the Shah, supporting Israel, invasions of Afghanistan by the Soviets and US, interfering in the Iran-Iraq war etc)

• Disenfranchisement by regional political powers (e.g. poorer Saudi citizens have limited political power compared to those in the royal family)

• Anti-modernist sentiments by political and religious conservatives

• Saudi financial support for harsh forms of Islam (e.g. Wahhabism) and anti-democratic tendencies

 

And, of course, let's not forget that not all radical Islamist violence is targeting the West, e.g. a Muslim insurgency is active in Thailand and targets locals rather than tourists.

 

Responses on "how to end the conflict" vary, and typically depend on one's own political views. E.g. a hawk is likely to take a hard line, a multiculturalist may press for engagement. I'd guess that taking the attitude that "these people are our enemy, and they are broken and need to be fixed" probably doesn't help matters.

 

Also, some political observers are picking up on the possibility that violence is actually receding in the world today. Combine that with media that is fascinated with war and conflict, and is increasingly able to report from all sorts of perspectives instantaneously, and an increasing valuation of the life of "our" fellow citizens, and the violence that remains becomes much more obvious. (e.g. Steven Pinker's recent Edge article, in which he points out (among other things) that we should not conflate an increase in concern with an increase in incidence.

[Fluxus]

I honestly think the reason can be summed up in very few words, quite possibly one, RELIGION, nothing else I know of can cause people to do things that are totally insane and allow everyone else to cheer them on and approve of the those actions and incite others to do the same thing....

Actually, there are plenty of motivations to do things that you view as "totally insane," including political views, ethnic groupings, perceptions of self-interest and reactions to economic conditions.

 

Stalin and Pol Pot executed millions in the name of Communism. The Cultural Revolution was a product of Maoism, not Buddhism. The genocide in Rwanda was based on ethnic conflicts, not religion. The French Revolution, which was a bit of a chaotic bloodbath, was motivated by economic, social and political repression rather than any religious factors. European nations and smaller feudal estates attacked each other for centuries, despite sharing not just the same religion, but the same sect of the same religion (as they were all Catholic). E.g. the Hundred Years War was a conflict over territory, not religion.

 

In many cases it's difficult to separate religion from social, economic and political factors, because religion is an integral part of so many societies. However, there are clear-cut cases all through history of these other factors playing major or dominant roles in social upheavals and mass violence. Blaming religion for all the world's ills is a bit myopic.

[charles brough]

Charles, I honestly think the reason can be summed up in very few words, quite possibly one, RELIGION, nothing else I know of can cause people to do things that are totally insane and allow everyone else to cheer them on and approve of the those actions and incite others to do the same thing. Only RELIGION can make you think you can dictate to everyone that anyone who does certain things you disagree with need to die or be killed even if those things are not effecting you in anyway other than being in your estimation wrong, only RELIGION dictates that even minor behaviors that your group thinks should not be done is deserving of death. And only RELIGION says that everyone has to be forced to follow those rules to please an unknown and impossible to know imaginary friend....

 

Yes, I agree, but that is because "religions" (actually, world-view and way-of-thinking systems) determine how people think. There has to be a common ideological frame of reference among people so they can live together in big societies and still feel a sense of community. And, there is a long term (century long) process of natural selection going on between the ideological system. People in them they have to feel their society-community is best and needs to not merely survive but hopefull to prevail over the others. That is the way you think and feel; it is the secular humanist way. Such ideological systems determine how we think and most of us try to think in terms of "Secular Humanism." That is, the humanistic view that we can unite the world by overlooking religious differences in order that all of us may achieve "the american dream" by "the pursuit of happiness."

 

We are the major source of Secular Humanism in the world. If or as we decline morally, economically and militarily, the world gradually reverts to religious fanaticism and strife. The very survival and growth of Islamic terrorism is a symptom of our decline.

[Moontanman]

 

As with most other fields, there is a diversity of opinions on why a handful of Muslims are radicalized and violent, including:

 

• An extensive history of conflict between Christianized Europe and Muslims in North Africa and Asia

• Historical and recent losses of political power by Muslim nations (e.g. fall of the Ottoman Empire, military defeats to Israel)

• The presence of Israel, combined with poor treatment of Palestinians and attacks on neighboring nations

• US / Western dominance and influence on Muslim nations (e.g. installing and supporting the Shah, supporting Israel, invasions of Afghanistan by the Soviets and US, interfering in the Iran-Iraq war etc)

• Disenfranchisement by regional political powers (e.g. poorer Saudi citizens have limited political power compared to those in the royal family)

• Anti-modernist sentiments by political and religious conservatives

• Saudi financial support for harsh forms of Islam (e.g. Wahhabism) and anti-democratic tendencies

 

And, of course, let's not forget that not all radical Islamist violence is targeting the West, e.g. a Muslim insurgency is active in Thailand and targets locals rather than tourists.

 

Responses on "how to end the conflict" vary, and typically depend on one's own political views. E.g. a hawk is likely to take a hard line, a multiculturalist may press for engagement. I'd guess that taking the attitude that "these people are our enemy, and they are broken and need to be fixed" probably doesn't help matters.

 

Also, some political observers are picking up on the possibility that violence is actually receding in the world today. Combine that with media that is fascinated with war and conflict, and is increasingly able to report from all sorts of perspectives instantaneously, and an increasing valuation of the life of "our" fellow citizens, and the violence that remains becomes much more obvious. (e.g. Steven Pinker's recent Edge article, in which he points out (among other things) that we should not conflate an increase in concern with an increase in incidence.

 

While all your points do have merit, the fact remains that any country where religion becomes all powerful tends to dive into fundamentalism and in our lovely Abrahamic tradition of mono theism the fundamental laws are horrific, calling for the death penalty for things that are considered minor if offensive at all in modern non theocratic systems. Things like murder, genocide, rape, and pillage are not just tolerated but demanded.

 

Absolute power corrupts absolutely and no where is this more apparent than in religion, yes it can happen when one man gets absolute power, especially if he is a psychopath, but eventually either reason comes into play and the absolute power of one man is diluted or his power falls apart because there is no supernatural component to allow him to continue his absolute rein, North Korea is an example of this, the leader made himself a god, his people have been taught for generations that he is god and he holds on to power with an iron grip because so few humans are willing to go against god.

 

Pol Pot was a psychopath and he fell quite quickly as these things go, Stalin had his power diluted by sharing power with others and his rein of terror ended as well but religion, once it obtains absolute power, is far harder to throw off and often retains it's power by convincing a small number of people to terrorize anyone who disagrees and gives the backing of "God's Word" to justify almost anything. An evil leader will eventually die if nothing else but once God in in absolute control he is far more difficult to dislodge and fundamentalists make sure the moderates are kept in line. It is happening today in Islam and we can see the stirrings of such behavior in fundamentalist Christianity as well.

 

Modern western society exists as it does today because we had the good sense to geld religion, religion has to has to be a choice and to make sure it is a choice it has to defanged and neutered, anything less and it will eventually regain power dive back into fundamentalism and drag reason and enlightenment down that black hole of despair with it.

[Moontanman]

I know this may come as a shock to some folks here, but: Scholars and political scientists have, in fact, studied and debated the issue for quite some time.

 

Oh yes, what a shock...

 

As with most other fields, there is a diversity of opinions on why a handful of Muslims are radicalized and violent, including:

 

Lets see what causes them...

 

•

An extensive history of conflict between Christianized Europe and Muslims in North Africa and Asia

 

Ultimate Cause: religion

 

• Historical and recent losses of political power by Muslim nations (e.g. fall of the Ottoman Empire, military defeats to Israel)

 

Again religion is still at the root of this conflict

 

• The presence of Israel, combined with poor treatment of Palestinians and attacks on neighboring nations

 

Caused by what? Religion...

 

• US / Western dominance and influence on Muslim nations (e.g. installing and supporting the Shah, supporting Israel, invasions of Afghanistan by the Soviets and US, interfering in the Iran-Iraq war etc)

 

Non the less all of this is indeed seen through and inflamed by... Religion

 

• Disenfranchisement by regional political powers (e.g. poorer Saudi citizens have limited political power compared to those in the royal family)

 

When you have a theocracy politics and religion are indeed the same thing...

 

• Anti-modernist sentiments by political and religious conservatives

 

Religion yet again

 

• Saudi financial support for harsh forms of Islam (e.g. Wahhabism) and anti-democratic tendencies

 

Difficult to separate out religion from this as well.

 

And, of course, let's not forget that not all radical Islamist violence is targeting the West, e.g. a Muslim insurgency is active in Thailand and targets locals rather than tourists.

 

Non the less religion is again at the root of this.

 

Responses on "how to end the conflict" vary, and typically depend on one's own political views. E.g. a hawk is likely to take a hard line, a multiculturalist may press for engagement. I'd guess that taking the attitude that "these people are our enemy, and they are broken and need to be fixed" probably doesn't help matters.

 

Basically both sides think the only real way to end the conflict is for their personal belief system to prevail so everyone can enjoy the blessings of the profit Mohammad, or Jesus, or Yahweh

 

Also, some political observers are picking up on the possibility that violence is actually receding in the world today. Combine that with media that is fascinated with war and conflict, and is increasingly able to report from all sorts of perspectives instantaneously, and an increasing valuation of the life of "our" fellow citizens, and the violence that remains becomes much more obvious. (e.g. Steven Pinker's recent Edge article, in which he points out (among other things) that we should not conflate an increase in concern with an increase in incidence.

 

That is an interesting assertion but I would have to see more evidence of it, i think that the violence ebs and flows but will never go away as long as religion is at the heart of the conflicts, conservative Christians are quite vocal that they want to spread the word of Jesus and conservative Muslims want to spread the word of Mohammed, both think they have the absolute truth and think they have the right to spread the word by force if necessary, most of the arguments put forth have at their root religious differences, you can claim it's more of a societal difference or world view or what ever but if you dig in deep enough you find religion parasitism on the roots of these ideas.

[Fluxus]

While all your points do have merit, the fact remains that any country where religion becomes all powerful tends to dive into fundamentalism and in our lovely Abrahamic tradition of mono theism the fundamental laws are horrific, calling for the death penalty for things that are considered minor if offensive at all in modern non theocratic systems....

I understand why you may believe this, but it just doesn't seem to explain history very well.

 

The US isn't all that much more theocratic than Europe, and we still have the death penalty. Many decidedly non-theistic nations opt for capital punishment, while many nations with an equally or more religious public than the US ban it.

 

 

Absolute power corrupts absolutely and no where is this more apparent than in religion, yes it can happen when one man gets absolute power, especially if he is a psychopath, but eventually either reason comes into play and the absolute power of one man is diluted or his power falls apart because there is no supernatural component to allow him to continue his absolute rein....

Sorry, but this really is not the case. North Korea is still a totalitarian police state; the Soviet state survived numerous generations, and after a brief dalliance is headed back to (secular) totalitarianism; Singapore is a non-theistic benevolent dictatorship, the list goes on; many absolute rulers in the ancient world held absolute power, without necessarily invoking divine authority, until they died.

 

 

...religion, once it obtains absolute power, is far harder to throw off and often retains it's power by convincing a small number of people to terrorize anyone who disagrees and gives the backing of "God's Word" to justify almost anything.

Again, incorrect.

 

Religion hardly guarantees political security. Nearly every European king claimed to hold the divine right of kings, yet in many respects this did not have any particular impact on their total political power -- hence the Magna Carta, where feudal lords explicitly wrung concessions. The Normans did not invoke divine right when they invaded England; the Plantagenets did not rely on divine right to invade France, rather they were thinking more about property rights and political control.

 

You're also glossing over aspects of religion, such as its critical role in Abolitionism and the US Civil Rights movement, as a source of social cohesion and education in various eras (including the highly chaotic period after the fall of the Western Roman Empire), as the source of aesthetic accomplishments ranging from incredible cathedrals to the Buddhist influence on mono no aware. This just scratches the surface of the positive aspects of religions.

 

 

You are basically viewing all of history through a very specific paradigm. It glosses over the positive aspects of religion in favor of focusing exclusively on the negatives. Your view isn't accurate, it doesn't explain a lot of history, it's unnecessarily insulting, and definitely fails to explain why we see such similar mechanics in theocracies and non-theocratic states.

[Fluxus]

Ultimate Cause: religion

To you perhaps. This ignores the rather obvious ethnic, political, economic and social forces that also divided these two cultures, as well as basic conflicts over territorial control.

 

US involvement in the Middle East, by the way, is largely driven not by religion but by oil deposits. We've installed and supported quite a few strongmen all over the world, including Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

 

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is also just as much about "group identity" and American influence in the region as it is about religion. After all, the initial Israeli immigrants basically came from Europe, seized a bunch of territory, and said "this is ours." If a large group of Chinese immigrants seized the entire San Francisco peninsula and insisted it was a new nation that was seceding from America, it'd pretty much be the same thing.

 

 

Basically both sides think the only real way to end the conflict is for their personal belief system to prevail so everyone can enjoy the blessings of the profit Mohammad, or Jesus, or Yahweh

Not really.

 

If you're a sympathizer, the current conflicts are the US fighting to defend its security, extend democracy and increase liberty; if you're a cynic, it's to sieze control of resources and territory, and to extend US influence. The US has acted the same way throughout much of Central and South America, as well as Southeast Asia, without any intent to Christianize any of these nations. The Soviet Union and China also engaged in lots of violent acts that were far more about territory and influence than about religion.

 

None of this is to say "religion has no influence whatsoever," only that it is highly unlikely to be a primary agent in each and every conflict. Violent conflict can, has been, and will be about religion, ethnicity, territory, class, race, economics, resources, power, security, revenge, fear and numerous combinations thereof.

 

 

That is an interesting assertion but I would have to see more evidence of it....

Start by reading the Pinker article I linked, for a brief essay it's actually fairly thorough. Joshua Goldstein is (or just did) publish a book on the same topic, a summary is here: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/08/15/think_again_war?print=yes&hidecomments=yes&page=full

 

And again, history is replete with wars that have nothing to do with religion, including most of the inter-European conflicts, and especially the two (nominally) largest conflicts to date, World War I and World War II.

 

If all you want to see is religion, then all you will see is religion. But it's far too narrow a paradigm to single-handedly explain all the violent conflicts throughout history.

[Moontanman]

To you perhaps. This ignores the rather obvious ethnic, political, economic and social forces that also divided these two cultures, as well as basic conflicts over territorial control.

 

US involvement in the Middle East, by the way, is largely driven not by religion but by oil deposits. We've installed and supported quite a few strongmen all over the world, including Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

 

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is also just as much about "group identity" and American influence in the region as it is about religion. After all, the initial Israeli immigrants basically came from Europe, seized a bunch of territory, and said "this is ours." If a large group of Chinese immigrants seized the entire San Francisco peninsula and insisted it was a new nation that was seceding from America, it'd pretty much be the same thing.

 

 

 

Not really.

 

If you're a sympathizer, the current conflicts are the US fighting to defend its security, extend democracy and increase liberty; if you're a cynic, it's to sieze control of resources and territory, and to extend US influence. The US has acted the same way throughout much of Central and South America, as well as Southeast Asia, without any intent to Christianize any of these nations. The Soviet Union and China also engaged in lots of violent acts that were far more about territory and influence than about religion.

 

None of this is to say "religion has no influence whatsoever," only that it is highly unlikely to be a primary agent in each and every conflict. Violent conflict can, has been, and will be about religion, ethnicity, territory, class, race, economics, resources, power, security, revenge, fear and numerous combinations thereof.

 

 

 

Start by reading the Pinker article I linked, for a brief essay it's actually fairly thorough. Joshua Goldstein is (or just did) publish a book on the same topic, a summary is here: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/08/15/think_again_war?print=yes&hidecomments=yes&page=full

 

And again, history is replete with wars that have nothing to do with religion, including most of the inter-European conflicts, and especially the two (nominally) largest conflicts to date, World War I and World War II.

 

If all you want to see is religion, then all you will see is religion. But it's far too narrow a paradigm to single-handedly explain all the violent conflicts throughout history.

 

 

For every conflict you can name that didn't directly involve religion i bet I can name ten that did and in every single one that didn't i guarantee you both sides claimed god was on their side and used religious propaganda to inflame the masses into war. Of course not all conflicts involve God directly but God was used to inflame even the ones that didn't directly involve god, both world wars used religious imagery to goad people into join and to fight and as for abolitionists, how droll, when you consider that religion was used to justify slavery to begin with. The bible contains detailed instructions for slavery, who to enslave an how to beat them how close to death you can beat them (as long as they don't die the same day from the beating it is ok)and when you can sell your daughter into slavery not to mention rape, pillage, and genocide. Far more people have killed and been killed in the name of one god or another than all other causes put together.

 

Does religion ever do good, of course it does, religious people put considerable time and energy not to mention money into helping people but at the same time they never fail to promote their religion as well when they do. When you match fundamentalism and politics what you get is absolute disregard for human rights and an intellectual black hole that drags everything into it's ravenous maw. I suggest you actually read the bible, not in small sound bites that some pastor or priest asks you to so he can tell you what it means but actually read the horrific details, all at once and see what God really wants.

 

This has gotten out of hand and is OT but if you want to defend god don't look for me to fail to point out the silliness of the idea that God is anything but a psychopathic monster that demands everything from murder to genocide of his followers in his name... far too much we assume that the current so called christian goodness is what god is all about but that is just because we don't allow the religious to really follow that god really demands, what little respect I have for Muslims is that they recognize what god is really about and do their best to really follow what he demands, I think it's wrong but at least they don't shrink at the reality of it, really following the word of god results in horrific violations of what we call human rights but god doesn't care anything for human rights all he cares for his his pound of flesh, usually human flesh...

 

If you want to continue this i suggest you start a thread in the religion forum...

[Fluxus]

I don't see a "Religion" subforum, and this is not a theological discussion. It's a discussion about the role of religion in violent conflicts, which started with a focus on radicalized and violent Muslims.

 

 

For every conflict you can name that didn't directly involve religion i bet I can name ten that did and in every single one that didn't i guarantee you both sides claimed god was on their side and used religious propaganda to inflame the masses into war...

That hardly means that the war in question was' date=' in fact, religious in nature, far from it. I have no doubt that both sides of the Hundred Years War prayed for victory and proclaimed that God was on their side. However, both sides were Christians, and they weren't fighting because of religious doctrines; they were fighting over territory. It would be slightly ridiculous to say that two Catholics who held identical theological positions, owed loyalty to the same Pope, and fought each other over a scrap of land, were [i']really[/i] fighting because of or about religion.

 

In the majority of cases, when the two sides don't share a religion, they are also from different ethnic groups, and "just happen" to be fighting over territory and resources as well. Iran-Iraq war? Part of it was sectarian conflict, but a lot of it is Persian-Arab, border disputes, and feuds over oil. "The Troubles" in Ireland? It's not just Catholic vs Protestant, it's also Irish vs English. Simply noting that "both halves hold religious views" really doesn't demonstrate any causal information, especially since almost all of humanity throughout recorded history has held some sort of religious view or another. (Even the US, a nominally secular state, often invoked God in overtly non-theistic conflicts.)

 

Conflicts that are exclusively or near-dominantly about religion are actually quite rare, e.g. various civil wars during the Reformation. Name almost any other war and I'll be happy to show that even if religion is a primary focus, other factors like ethnicity, economics, territory and culture are also bound up in that conflict. Even when the Papal States hired mercenaries, it wasn't about saving souls; it was about powerful Popes attempting to seize territory. Your claim that you can rattle off dozens of conflicts that are "about religion," unfortunately, is belied by your excessive focus on the religious aspects of various wars, to the point where you can't recognize obvious examples of non-religious causes of war.

 

And, of course, there's actually quite a bit of evidence that people from different religions actually get along just fine most of the time. Contrary to what the media would have you believe, cities like New York, Boston, D.C., Los Angeles and San Francisco pack hundreds of divergent religions and sects (and ethnic, economic, cultural groups) into a small and dense area with very little violent conflict. Not to mention it wasn't that long ago that the Japanese and Germans were the epitome of Evil, and are now strong allies of the US and Europe. (Even the conflicts between the Jews and Muslim Arabs are relatively recent, it's less than 200 years old afaik.)

 

 

As far as the Evils of Religion, let's not forget that Aristotle presented an essentially non-theistic defense of slavery as "natural" (and that Christianity largely, albeit slowly, eradicated slavery in Europe), that Nazism was influenced by non-religious ideas like eugenics and interpretations of Nietzsche's "Overman," and that the thoroughly atheistic Marxism/Communism/Maoism licensed all sorts of repression and violence.

 

Human rights violations are hardly restricted to religious fundamentalists, as clearly indicated by the behavior of the USSR, GDR, dozens of secular dictatorships, China... and the US. I don't suppose Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, water boarding and rendition ring any bells? Hoover, McCarthyism, Bull Connor, Medgar Evars, Fred Hampton, COINTELPRO, Attica? Disastrous overcrowding in US prisons? Highest incarceration rate in the world? Death penalty? Assassinating individuals like the US-born Anwar al-Awlaki? Some of this can be justified, but the more you need to justify, the more strained your excuses, and your moral authority is harder to justify.

 

And while it is easy to demonstrate that the US has more respect for civil and human rights than Saudi Arabia, it's much harder to say that non-theocratic dictatorships like Myanmar, China, Pinochet's Chile, Guatemala etc have significantly better records than Saudi Arabia, or that predominantly Muslim nations like Morocco and Jordan are all as bad as Saudi Arabia.

 

We also see religious individuals risking and losing their lives in defense of human rights, e.g. Oscar Romero, numerous "disappeared" Catholic priests in South and Central America, adherents to "liberation theology," Rev Martin Luther King, Gandhi....

 

Further, you don't need a fundamentalist religion to install a dictator -- Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Kruschev, Pinochet, Noriega, Amin, Duvalier, arap Moi, Mugabe, Mobutu, Chavez -- in fact a huge swath of 20th/21st century dictators are secular in nature, especially those of a Marxist/Communist persuasion. After the 4th or 5th dictator, proclaiming that these individuals are "psychopaths" and thus somehow their actions should be exempted from a socio-political analysis falls flat.

 

Or, to put it another way: In the same way that there really isn't much evidence that atheists are less ethical than religious individuals (a widely-held, and as far as I can tell false, belief), there isn't much evidence that religious individuals are less ethical than secularists or atheists.

 

 

 

As to the current issues of radicalized and violent Muslim insurgencies, is religion a factor? Definitely. But it is certainly not the only factor, since there are complex economic, political, cultural, territorial, historical and emotional issues at stake. In fact, it would be difficult to say where post-Colonialism and economic bullying ends, and religious conflict begins, since these aspects are so thoroughly intertwined. By focusing on religion you ignore all the other factors involved in the conflict -- it's a one-dimensional analysis of a 10-dimensional world.

 

This in turn decimates your ability offer viable resolutions to the conflict. You not only ignore numerous causal factors, you are also unable to approach either side with a modicum of respect, and can't offer any remotely practical alternatives. No one in this conflict is going to renounce their religion, and trashing a religion as worshiping a "psychopathic monster" is not going to make a lot of friends either. You don't have the sensitivity or tolerance to accept the fact that people have a diversity of religious and philosophical views, and may not realize that people can, in fact, bury their differences (religious and otherwise) under the right circumstances, the will to compromise and a lot of work.

[Moontanman]

I don't see a "Religion" subforum, and this is not a theological discussion. It's a discussion about the role of religion in violent conflicts, which started with a focus on radicalized and violent Muslims.

 

 

 

That hardly means that the war in question was, in fact, religious in nature, far from it. I have no doubt that both sides of the Hundred Years War prayed for victory and proclaimed that God was on their side. However, both sides were Christians, and they weren't fighting because of religious doctrines; they were fighting over territory. It would be slightly ridiculous to say that two Catholics who held identical theological positions, owed loyalty to the same Pope, and fought each other over a scrap of land, were really fighting because of or about religion.

 

In the majority of cases, when the two sides don't share a religion, they are also from different ethnic groups, and "just happen" to be fighting over territory and resources as well. Iran-Iraq war? Part of it was sectarian conflict, but a lot of it is Persian-Arab, border disputes, and feuds over oil. "The Troubles" in Ireland? It's not just Catholic vs Protestant, it's also Irish vs English. Simply noting that "both halves hold religious views" really doesn't demonstrate any causal information, especially since almost all of humanity throughout recorded history has held some sort of religious view or another. (Even the US, a nominally secular state, often invoked God in overtly non-theistic conflicts.)

 

Conflicts that are exclusively or near-dominantly about religion are actually quite rare, e.g. various civil wars during the Reformation. Name almost any other war and I'll be happy to show that even if religion is a primary focus, other factors like ethnicity, economics, territory and culture are also bound up in that conflict. Even when the Papal States hired mercenaries, it wasn't about saving souls; it was about powerful Popes attempting to seize territory. Your claim that you can rattle off dozens of conflicts that are "about religion," unfortunately, is belied by your excessive focus on the religious aspects of various wars, to the point where you can't recognize obvious examples of non-religious causes of war.

 

And, of course, there's actually quite a bit of evidence that people from different religions actually get along just fine most of the time. Contrary to what the media would have you believe, cities like New York, Boston, D.C., Los Angeles and San Francisco pack hundreds of divergent religions and sects (and ethnic, economic, cultural groups) into a small and dense area with very little violent conflict. Not to mention it wasn't that long ago that the Japanese and Germans were the epitome of Evil, and are now strong allies of the US and Europe. (Even the conflicts between the Jews and Muslim Arabs are relatively recent, it's less than 200 years old afaik.)

 

 

As far as the Evils of Religion, let's not forget that Aristotle presented an essentially non-theistic defense of slavery as "natural" (and that Christianity largely, albeit slowly, eradicated slavery in Europe), that Nazism was influenced by non-religious ideas like eugenics and interpretations of Nietzsche's "Overman," and that the thoroughly atheistic Marxism/Communism/Maoism licensed all sorts of repression and violence.

 

Human rights violations are hardly restricted to religious fundamentalists, as clearly indicated by the behavior of the USSR, GDR, dozens of secular dictatorships, China... and the US. I don't suppose Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, water boarding and rendition ring any bells? Hoover, McCarthyism, Bull Connor, Medgar Evars, Fred Hampton, COINTELPRO, Attica? Disastrous overcrowding in US prisons? Highest incarceration rate in the world? Death penalty? Assassinating individuals like the US-born Anwar al-Awlaki? Some of this can be justified, but the more you need to justify, the more strained your excuses, and your moral authority is harder to justify.

 

And while it is easy to demonstrate that the US has more respect for civil and human rights than Saudi Arabia, it's much harder to say that non-theocratic dictatorships like Myanmar, China, Pinochet's Chile, Guatemala etc have significantly better records than Saudi Arabia, or that predominantly Muslim nations like Morocco and Jordan are all as bad as Saudi Arabia.

 

We also see religious individuals risking and losing their lives in defense of human rights, e.g. Oscar Romero, numerous "disappeared" Catholic priests in South and Central America, adherents to "liberation theology," Rev Martin Luther King, Gandhi....

 

Further, you don't need a fundamentalist religion to install a dictator -- Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Kruschev, Pinochet, Noriega, Amin, Duvalier, arap Moi, Mugabe, Mobutu, Chavez -- in fact a huge swath of 20th/21st century dictators are secular in nature, especially those of a Marxist/Communist persuasion. After the 4th or 5th dictator, proclaiming that these individuals are "psychopaths" and thus somehow their actions should be exempted from a socio-political analysis falls flat.

 

Or, to put it another way: In the same way that there really isn't much evidence that atheists are less ethical than religious individuals (a widely-held, and as far as I can tell false, belief), there isn't much evidence that religious individuals are less ethical than secularists or atheists.

 

 

 

As to the current issues of radicalized and violent Muslim insurgencies, is religion a factor? Definitely. But it is certainly not the only factor, since there are complex economic, political, cultural, territorial, historical and emotional issues at stake. In fact, it would be difficult to say where post-Colonialism and economic bullying ends, and religious conflict begins, since these aspects are so thoroughly intertwined. By focusing on religion you ignore all the other factors involved in the conflict -- it's a one-dimensional analysis of a 10-dimensional world.

 

This in turn decimates your ability offer viable resolutions to the conflict. You not only ignore numerous causal factors, you are also unable to approach either side with a modicum of respect, and can't offer any remotely practical alternatives. No one in this conflict is going to renounce their religion, and trashing a religion as worshiping a "psychopathic monster" is not going to make a lot of friends either. You don't have the sensitivity or tolerance to accept the fact that people have a diversity of religious and philosophical views, and may not realize that people can, in fact, bury their differences (religious and otherwise) under the right circumstances, the will to compromise and a lot of work.

 

 

I have no respect for religion or for religious apologists nor am i looking to make friends among theists, I tolerate anyone who will tolerate me but theists are nothing if not intolerant of anyone who does not agree with their tiny box in which they put the concept of god and the main goal of theists is to convert everyone to their own brand of theism effectively they think it's gods command to convert the world, by force if necessary, theists don't even like each other which accounts for the many thousands of different christian denominations many of which have tried violently suppress each other.

 

Your examples, like for instance the northern Ireland conflict was indeed fueled by religion, the antagonists used religion as an excuse to kill one another many times, it was religion that gave the spark that grew into the wild fire of that conflict. The Iran Iraq war was also fueled by religion, both sides being members of Muslim sects that have been killing each other for hundreds of years, religion is the lubricant that makes many of these wars "easier" or to be more accurate more vicious.

 

Religion is used to dehumanize your opposition, make it easier to kill him because he is really not human because he worships god the wrong way or for the wrong reason or because he just won't see the "light" and do what you think he should do and by extension what god wants him to do so even if your enemy is of precisely the same sect of the religion you hold dear religion still plays into it. You cannot say that because the protagonists are protestant or both catholic that religion is not part of the justification for the conflict.

 

Just about an hour ago i heard a knock at my door, yes you guessed it theists who believe so strongly that their tiny world view is correct and everyone else, even other Christians, are so wrong they have to go out and aggravate everyone with their "good news" Even in the short history of the USA you have many instances of one Christian group violently opposing another Christian group over minor details in the way they worship god, Catholics were hung as were Quakers and don't even mention native shaman.

 

You can look at the world with your religious blinders on if you want (oh no real Christian would do that or no real Muslim would do this, or my god is a god of peace and love) but i prefer to see the entire landscape. God in always present on the battlefield, inflaming the poor smucks to die for their cause because god wants them to win.

 

Theists have no respect for the world view of anyone else, nothing but contempt and anger for anyone who worships god the wrong way and total belief that God loves them and will give them the strength to spread the good word (their particular slant on gods word), our history testifies to this, the constant violence between various theists proves it.

 

Religious apologists contort their arguments in anyway they can to convince people that these things are not true but all they really end up doing is placing their own heads firmly up their own rectums. With out religion i am sure wars would still happen but at least people would not kill because the enemy was infidels who deserved to die.

 

I see no reason to point out the hundreds of cultures destroyed because they worshiped a unapproved god or how that destruction was approved by the religious powers of the time. I am quite sure that Zeus, Thor, Jupiter and the other gods of antiquity did their part as well since Aristotle worshiped Zeus i don't see how you can use him as an example of someone who did not use god to justify his own world view. God is something men made up to justify their own savagery and it has worked quite well over the ages, far too well IMHO...

 

BTW, the only reason why theists get along so well today in the USA and other western cultures is because we pulled the teeth of religion and cut off it's testicles, the western form of religion is quite well domesticated and has very little of it's old power but as in Northern Ireland it still manages to flame up occasionally.

 

I suggest you attend a evangelical creationist church sometime, if that doesn't open your eyes to the hate filled nature of religion unleashed I guess nothing will.

[Essay]

Just what is the acclaimed reason in our society for the growth of Muslim terrorism in the last several generations? Seems to me there is no acclaimed reason at all! But how can we have an effective policy against terrorism if we don't know what causes it? There has to be some underlying assumptions behind our policy which we are not proclaiming but which our policies imply anyway. Our policy implies that "Islam is undergoing a degeneration towards extremism due to some defect in the faith." No one will say that because that would accelerate the problem, but it is implied anyway. People do think it---especially conservatives.

 

But is that really the cause? If so, what is this defect, when did it appear, and why?

 

Or is the problem or the "defect" cause by us?

 

Maybe I could start over and re-define (be consistent with) my terminology.

Obviously religion can be the source or background, upon which those ideas I tried to convey could be built up on, but the cause doesn't matter. Cause is only a framework upon which a justification for the reason is developed.

 

The same cause is used to justify many different effects; so it should be the motivation, the justification (for suicidal behaviour), that we try to understand.

 

Cause --> Reason (justified by cause) --> Effect

 

A person is motivated by the "reason" for feeling justified in their response (effect). Simply saying religion is the cause, doesn't address how a "reason" or justification is developed into various effects. What is the reason behind a person feeling any given effect DESERVES to be manifested? Why does anyone deserve what they get, and who decides?

===

 

Many people are bullied, but what brings a person to feel suicidal?

With some words edited, my first post might now make more sense....

What makes a person commit suicide? Whatever the cause is (call it x), it is important to focus on why any given (x) is developed into a reason, and how justification is developed for feeling motivated to blame some (x) as the "reason" for this current "effect" (to see suicide as next option).

 

I have to agree that if I felt lost and hopeless, and felt that everything that had meaning for me, and my ancestors and posterity, was now lost and had all been for nothing, then suicide might seem painless and the path most obvious.

 

And if I saw the cause--for the reason of being it that position--I might feel that cause deserves to be removed. But if it couldn't be removed, then I might feel that cause deserves to be attacked in an effort to express the anger of being forced into the position of suicide.

 

In other words, it's like the outcast who "stikes out" at the source of ostracism. The "lost one" feels that the "in" group (the bullies, the mainstream, the dominant culture) then "deserve" to be made aware of the effect they caused.

 

If someone made you decide upon suicide, wouldn't you feel they "deserve" whatever you could inflict upon them, in kind? Would that be justified?

===

 

And if I saw the same thing happening to my family and friends, or my culture, then I might feel the cause of that effect (or source of that cause) deserved to be attacked; to be made aware of what had been done, or what was currently happening, or even what seemed to have no prospect of abating for my posterity or my culture.

 

When your past & future are taken away, there is no present worth living except to make a statement; a metaphorical suicide note, to let the thieves know your past & future counted enough that you deserve to make at least one statement, which cannot be taken away.

===

 

If you are made powerless, the cause of that effect "deserves" to be countered. Does that seem reasonable, or is that a defect? That is what this is about; who deserves which, and what can be justified.

...yada, yada, yada

 

Many people are bullied, but what brings a person to feel suicidal?

 

Isn't it when [one feels the reason is] all other options are exhausted? If there is no hope or one is trapped and powerless, then it is the last option. And when a source for that feeling can be identified, then retaliatory suicide can occur. Does that seem like a defect, or a reasonable response to an unreasonable situation?

 

Is there any other reason for suicide? Do I assume too much?

Is the distinction between "reason/justification" and "cause" a valid point?

...or am I way off topic?

 

~ :huh:

[geko]

Interesting. I generally move forward under the assumption of reason 1 > belief > reason 2 > cause > effect.

 

So in context it would be, say, koran > belief in koran > want to experience what koran promises > motivation to act in a manner that you see promises being realised (e.g. kill infidels) > suicide bomb

 

I think this assumes objective reasons though whereas cause > reason > effect assumes subjective? I don't know… and think i'm actually inconsistent here as i swap between objective and subjective depending on how easy it is to think of things.

 

No doubt i've added nothing to the thread but i found it interesting.